TubeNet

If I put this in the wrong place, I apologize, but I hope that putting it here as many of you as possible will see/read this. Thanks!

To: The Atlanta Symphony Orchestra September 2, 2014
-- The Board of Directors
-- The Management
-- The Musicians
Although it is neither our place nor our intent to involve ourselves directly in the collective bargaining process between musicians and management, we feel compelled to write this letter. Our doing so bears inherent risks as it may be construed as our taking sides in what again has proved to
be a contentious process. We both feel bound by a sense of responsibility and deep commitment to represent and remind everyone what the ASO is all about: its high musical standards and aspirations. Indeed we are charged by contract to create and maintain it.

In the heat of the current negotiation we fear these standards might easily be forgotten or compromised. Our emotional commitment to the ASO and its potential is profound. This prompts us to speak out lest we fail in our duty to preserve the extraordinary legacy that has passed into our hands as temporary stewards. This is all the more poignant in that next season we celebrate the legacy of Robert Shaw. The ASO is a jewel, which should not be lost or compromised, and the current conditions threaten that loss.

This year's contract negotiation repeats an unhealthy pattern of pitting musician and management positions as incompatible alternatives. The situation is not unique to Atlanta. There are positive examples to emulate but above all we must avoid the residue of discord and acrimony. The concept that stopping the music -- whether characterized as lockout or strike -- as a reasonable alternative is unfathomable, deeply divisive, and would be a tragic mistake.

Two years ago, our musicians accepted huge concessions with an expectation that, in so doing, both board and management would be able to steer the organization out of financial distress. We ask the
board and management to acknowledge the sacrifice the musicians have already made, and to examine other ways and areas to establish sustainability.

Sustainability must also be applied to a quality of the orchestra and the notion of excellence, not only to finances. There are artistic lines that cannot and must not be crossed. We must re-dedicate ourselves to the ASO's founding principles of excellence and to the support of a full, robust, and world-class symphony orchestra.

We need a long-term agreement. The very nature of how the ASO interacts with its community is far better served without frequent interruption of collective bargaining. Creative innovation itself
requires time. Conception, investment, and experimentation take time to implement, and cannot be assessed instantly.

As we reflect on our long and deep relationship with this remarkable orchestra, it is our fervent hope that our words would be used only as a reminder of the common purpose we share: the purpose to
which the board has generously and tirelessly devoted considerable energy and personal resource - and that same purpose to which the musicians dedicate their lives and livelihoods.

We are both deeply committed and deeply concerned.

ROBERT SPANO DONALD RUNNICLES
Music Director Principal Guest conductor

And I, as a patron, am deeply concerned and quite frankly afraid to commit with the purchase of my tickets for the coming season. I have many friends who are deeply concerned because it is their livelihood, and they have been deeply committed for years. I do appreciate the letter from the esteemed conductors but my, my, these are sad days in Atlanta.

Why is it always assumed that if the musicians take a salary cut the standards of the orchestra will plummet? Even if some musicians leave because of it, don't they realize how many unemployed or underemployed musicians that are no appreciably worse would willingly take their jobs?

"Ya gets what Ya pays for" applies, but only if the people paying know what they are doing. In this case they do. These are excellent conductors, musicians and evaluators in their own right. In the trombone section the symphony has just lost and replaced the principal tenor and bass. And yes, I can tell the difference and I am not nearly as astute as these folks. IMHO the folks in NYC have acquired the best one and three combination since Chicago in the 60's with Friedman and Kleinhammer, and I don't get to hear them anymore as a direct result of this salary issue.

doublebuzzing wrote:Why is it always assumed that if the musicians take a salary cut the standards of the orchestra will plummet? Even if some musicians leave because of it, don't they realize how many unemployed or underemployed musicians that are no appreciably worse would willingly take their jobs?

You don't see world-class musicians flocking to perform for part-time wages...

I get that they must make a living and a deserved one but where exactly is that line? I can tell you it exists between what the consumer is willing to pay and management is willing to supply and still make a profit for their investors. How many world class musicians would work for say $75k instead of the 100k plus some of the larger orchestras make? But this is not a unique problem. Being in academia we have an unending supply of 20 years olds looking for their first job straight out of college. We know they will only be here for <3 years but we hire them anyway, why? they are cheap, and usually work hard. Problem is some of our staff positions really need career people and to staff them with professionals you must pay on that level. Try convincing admin of that when they have an unending supply of 20 year olds. But when you get hacked because you have no internet security, they start to pay attention. My point is there must be a balance. ASO, like other orchestras is trying to find that balance. Hopefully, it works out for them. I grew up going to the ASO (I was raised in Cobb) and I do wish them the best.

http://www.musicthinktank.com/blog/solv ... risis.html An article from a few years back. The logic sounds nice, but I am not in the music industry so I cannot speak to many of his statements, they may be spot on or wrong. I leave it to you to decide.

doublebuzzing wrote:Why is it always assumed that if the musicians take a salary cut the standards of the orchestra will plummet? Even if some musicians leave because of it, don't they realize how many unemployed or underemployed musicians that are no appreciably worse would willingly take their jobs?

This might be one of the most ignorant comments I have ever seen on this site. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how ensembles work. Musicians are not modular components that one switches out on a whim with no discernible difference. The audition process is rigorous for the individual but it almost always includes performance with the section and/or orchestra. There is a very good reason for that! Not every player will fit with an orchestra or section just because they are technically the best player at an audition. The players in the ASO were painstakingly chosen over a number of years because they are technically proficient plus they fit within the framework of the ensemble. Further, once chosen these musicians spend literally years learning how to work with each other. After a point, they communicate by instinct and can anticipate each others' actions during performance. Since most of this is unseen to anyone but the musicians themselves, it goes largely unnoticed. These abilities of the ensemble are the life blood of how an orchestra performs. Take pieces of that puzzle away and it becomes dysfunctional and unrecognizable.

Think of it this way: Why don't the New York Yankees win the world series every year? They play in the largest market, they have the most money to spend. Clearly, they can outbid almost any other team to get exactly the players they want. Said players will (mostly) flock to the higher salary and greater exposure. But they don't win championships every year. That's true because there is something more to the equation than having access to the best players. They must gel into a team. Orchestras are very similar. That process takes years to happen, if ever.

I wish the ASO musicians the very best. It is a hard situation to be fighting for reasonable compensation and dealing with a board that might not share the institution's vision, history of excellence, or have awareness of their own responsibility of stewardship as board members. It can be very easy to lose sight of the real goals of an orchestra when confronted with the reality of dollars and cents. The finances must be managed properly but at what cost? How creative is the current board in dealing with the financial realities of today? No matter how you deal with the finances, simply plugging cheaper musicians into the orchestra and expecting nothing to change with the quality level is beyond blind.

Jay Bertolet wrote:

doublebuzzing wrote:Why is it always assumed that if the musicians take a salary cut the standards of the orchestra will plummet? Even if some musicians leave because of it, don't they realize how many unemployed or underemployed musicians that are no appreciably worse would willingly take their jobs?

This might be one of the most ignorant comments I have ever seen on this site. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how ensembles work. Musicians are not modular components that one switches out on a whim with no discernible difference. The audition process is rigorous for the individual but it almost always includes performance with the section and/or orchestra. There is a very good reason for that! Not every player will fit with an orchestra or section just because they are technically the best player at an audition. The players in the ASO were painstakingly chosen over a number of years because they are technically proficient plus they fit within the framework of the ensemble. Further, once chosen these musicians spend literally years learning how to work with each other. After a point, they communicate by instinct and can anticipate each others' actions during performance. Since most of this is unseen to anyone but the musicians themselves, it goes largely unnoticed. These abilities of the ensemble are the life blood of how an orchestra performs. Take pieces of that puzzle away and it becomes dysfunctional and unrecognizable.

Think of it this way: Why don't the New York Yankees win the world series every year? They play in the largest market, they have the most money to spend. Clearly, they can outbid almost any other team to get exactly the players they want. Said players will (mostly) flock to the higher salary and greater exposure. But they don't win championships every year. That's true because there is something more to the equation than having access to the best players. They must gel into a team. Orchestras are very similar. That process takes years to happen, if ever.

I wish the ASO musicians the very best. It is a hard situation to be fighting for reasonable compensation and dealing with a board that might not share the institution's vision, history of excellence, or have awareness of their own responsibility of stewardship as board members. It can be very easy to lose sight of the real goals of an orchestra when confronted with the reality of dollars and cents. The finances must be managed properly but at what cost? How creative is the current board in dealing with the financial realities of today? No matter how you deal with the finances, simply plugging cheaper musicians into the orchestra and expecting nothing to change with the quality level is beyond blind.

I hate to break it to you but there's probably ten to twenty people at each audition who could do the job just as well and nobody in the audience would hear a difference. There are plenty of unemployed conservatory graduates who would gladly work for "part-time wages" rather than no wages (what do you mean by part time? $50,000 a year?). I've spoken to professional musicians on audition panels and they have said that it is almost impossible to offer a musical reason why they choose one person over another because they all sound so much alike and can adapt so easily to what the conductor/audition committee is looking for. They could literally choose 4 or 5 different people and expect the same result. There are way more qualified musicians than jobs available.

And it doesn't take years for a orchestra to gel as a team. Ever heard of the World Orchestra for Peace? They are a group of musicians that comes together for a couple concerts a year and are from several different orchestras and the end product is just as high of standard as anything the NYP puts on.

By the way, the artistic standards of the London Symphony must be really sagging on only $65,000 average per year.

doublebuzzing wrote:I hate to break it to you but there's probably ten to twenty people at each audition who could do the job just as well and nobody in the audience would hear a difference.

You're not breaking anything to me. I've heard all that before. I can certainly hear a difference after some of our recent departures and I don't have the greatest ear in the world.

tbn.al wrote:

doublebuzzing wrote:I hate to break it to you but there's probably ten to twenty people at each audition who could do the job just as well and nobody in the audience would hear a difference.

You're not breaking anything to me. I've heard all that before. I can certainly hear a difference after some of our recent departures and I don't have the greatest ear in the world.

I've listened to the ASO's radio broadcasts all year and they sound as good as ever. Could you be so kind as to point out where there's a problem to your ear? The new principal trumpet? Sounds excellent. Bass trombone? Really good.

Jay Bertolet wrote: Think of it this way: Why don't the New York Yankees win the world series every year? They play in the largest market, they have the most money to spend. Clearly, they can outbid almost any other team to get exactly the players they want. Said players will (mostly) flock to the higher salary and greater exposure. But they don't win championships every year.

Well there are variables like injuries that play a large role. But NY has won the most World Series - 27 -next closest is St Louis at a far away 12 and third is Boston with 8. So clearly NY has been extremely successful by doing their player rotation. I don't begrudge people asking for more money and trying to maximize their income. But at the end of the day the organization has to have the funds to do so. If the donors can't be found then it has to come from the pockets of the patrons but how much more are they willing to shell out? You have to have a sustainable operation. Doublebuzzing does have a valid point in that there is an awful lot of great talent out there that might be willing to work for less and lets be honest here - an awful lot of the folks who go to the hall would not hear the difference.

doublebuzzing wrote: I've listened to the ASO's radio broadcasts all year and they sound as good as ever. Could you be so kind as to point out where there's a problem to your ear? The new principal trumpet? Sounds excellent. Bass trombone? Really good.

Since I've never heard an ASO radio broadcast there is no way I could know what the problem is to my ear. I do have the opinion that all recordings tend to equalize the playing field. Live to recorded is apples to oranges. I'm not sure we can ever agree on this so let's just agree to disagree.

Speaking to Jay's point, I was fortunate to hear the Philadelphia Orchestra in 1981, Ormandy had hired every musician in the group. I never heard anything like before or since. Unless you hear it for yourself, it's hard to know how much better a really great thing is.

I deal with the same dilemma at work even though it is a whole different industry.
in which the owner wants hire a $10 an hour bookkeeper to do the job instead of qualified person. it is true that a lot of people will take the job because they are a lot of people with bookkeeping experience looking for work,. but 11 years of experience and track record running the company speaks volume is very hard to replicate.

you see it everything. unfortunately back in 2008- 2009 when the economy was not doing well. some companies were not doing too well. and oshark business owners took advantage of the situation to cut down corners in their operation. and it hurt all of us.

how long are we going to take go back to when America was the land of opportunity? living the American dream?

Wow. Some people are clueless, then compound the cluelessness by being argumentative. Might be a good time to shut up, since you either are not in the audition circuit or have not won a audition at anything near a liveable wage.

eupher61 wrote:Wow. Some people are clueless, then compound the cluelessness by being argumentative. Might be a good time to shut up, since you either are not in the audition circuit or have not won a audition at anything near a liveable wage.

If you disagree with someone, just tell him to shut up. And make sure he knows he is ignorant--don't tell him in what why he is ignorant but just that he is ignorant because you say so!

Here's some pertinent quotes from the Editor of the American Record Guide (classical music magazine). He must be ignorant as well to say such things.

"The staffs must be cut...and musicians are going to have to accept serious pay cuts. As we have often said, many orchestras will simply fold if musicians won't accept serious pay cuts. It's going to become not a matter of 'How much pay do you insist on?' but 'Do you want a job or don't you?'" (Jan/Feb 2013)

"Most orchestras are playing far more than the public needs them to, and they are failing to get more people to the concerts. If there is no public demand for more concerts, there is no basis for the salary increases they have won in the last 20 or 30 years, either. Every time the players won an increase, the management was expected to go out and sell more concerts--and that very quickly reached its natural limit. There just aren't enough interested people out there, and musicians are going to have to accept declining salaries.

"Without the unions, musicians would be earning half of what they are (or less)--because that's all our culture will support. Be realistic. What has happened over many years--but the big leap was in the 70s--is an artificial inflation of musicians' salaries way beyond the ability of the orchestra to pay. ....

"There are very few jobs for real musicians that pay well. Cut the starting salary at our top orchestras in half and it's still a good-paying job (the London Symphony musician earns half of his counterpart in the Chicago Symphony, and London is a more expensive city than Chicago). If 150 people audition for an oboist job in Chicago, probably half of them are good enough for it, all but one will be sent back to freelancing for a small but uncertain income. By the rules of the marketplace, the one you hire does not deserve $100,000. Good oboists are a dime a dozen; it's managements market, and they don't have to pay that kind of money to get a terrific oboist. It has been artificially inflated by the unions ; it has no basis; it is unsupported and unsupportable." (Nov/Dec 2003)

Just keep on getting your information from someone who was never a musician, never played in professional ensembles, but instead made their living working in the radio industry playing the recordings of musicians he (apparently) thinks are overpaid.

Jay Bertolet wrote:Just keep on getting your information from someone who was never a musician, never played in professional ensembles, but instead made their living working in the radio industry playing the recordings of musicians he (apparently) thinks are overpaid.

+1

The Atlanta Journal Constitution just published an update which does not sound encouraging.

http://artsculture.blog.ajc.com/2014/09 ... hony-deal/" target="_blank